I'll happily answer any rational questions, and i can assure no personal agenda will be allowed while I am Chair
My posts don't seem to be appearing haven't got the hang of this forum yet. I can assure you there is no personal agenda in the Trust or alliegance, we are open and democratic. I can do nothing about personal issues others have, other than assure anyone that such things would not be tolerated on my watch. Sure we listen to all who talk to us, why wouldn't we? A word on Charlton Life according to our survey which was scientific I am told, CL is the most widely used independent site by a very big margin meaning, it is too big to be a clique with a single view or agenda (a view I have heard elsewhere). I understand some people don't like things about it or maybe some of the people on it or whatever, but its nothing to do with me, I just happen to 'live' there, nor to do with the Trust steering group. My posting was personal - a rarety nowadays, but I did say at the start that I wasn't posting as Chair or spokesperson, I don't personally owe anyone or any message board anything. Although perhaps in hindsight I don't really have that luxury anymore while I am Chair. As Chair I was asked to come on here to answer some questions about the Trust and I will gladly do that, I'm sorry we don't have the manpower to have a presence to come on all the forums regularly, ITV beat me with that stick too. I suggest a liaison on each forum, which I believe you have kinda in the form of Andy, but the best bet if you want to keep in touch is hook into one of our channels, twitter, facebook, weekly email round up - none require membership. I will also come and qnas on request if you can try and hold back the abusive comments. We do have access to accounts of sorts, they were published recently a loss of £7m equals a debt to someone somewhere, and I am reliably informed despite the increase in revenue, this will be the same the following year, as increased costs eat up any gains. It's in our Mag TNT.
Razil Well done for making your first posting on this site, where I like you am a visitor and I will behave, as we too have hardworking and devoted moderators behind the scenes, who care much about the value of this site and the importance of free speech and expression. If I am direct it's because I lack the etiquette and charm of many of my peers and as a simple man I look for simple answers. I am also very suspicious of you, the supporters trust and the 'slaugtered lamb' mentality that has grown up in the last two years on the charlton life site which has morphed itself now into a political party. Take your rather Churchillian headline "Charlton Life exclusive-the battle for the valley has begun" (I now can't find it on the CL site-has it been taken down?) what does that tell the reader? Is there a battle going on for the Valley? Is is good v evil (another thread quotes Edmund Burke , triumph of evil) is the level of paranoia aimed at the board by the ST fully justified? What is the position then? Are we about to lose the valley? The rationale behind it seems to be that the new boad consists of a property developer. I can think of at least 12 clubs that have property developers as chairman including three past cafc directors. Were they evil? Should i not trust anyone who plays monopoly? So this leads me on to where you are getting your information from? In the past this club has extended a fig leaf to the supporters in a pioneering way, it has taken them into the boardroom and employed fans many of whom were valley party members. It seems for many years a cosy relationship existed between board and fans, and suddenly that relationship breaks down when the new board arrive, wether it was Kevin Cash, Jimenez, slater or the Holy Ghost this club started buying players and not **** ones either and we get a new manager, we get promoted all things should be rosy. But for some unexplained and without factual evidence the whole mood changes. You form ST, at the same time the board sacks a free loading gobby employee and its civil war! . It seemed obvious that the Board could not trust the fans anymore and so the old style family boardroom got shut in your face because of the constant leaks on CL. Just because your not allowed to play in the boardroom anymore does not justify you lot doing a Fletcher Christian. When I worked in McDonald's do you think I am entitled to walk up to Ronald McDonald and say "Ron, so what is in the special sauce then" . If you lot can't be trusted to keep secrets how can you be trusted to run something as valuable as a football club? You don't deal in rumours you say but you do deal in assumptions and hearsay which are equally unrealiable. Whoever is feeding you this information perhaps you ought to step back and consider motive and logic. Equally who want to buy into a club where the board has supporters on its table? I wouldn't. Would abromovich? Would fayed? Would any rich dick? Where the fun is sharing your toys with the peasants Until I see concrete evidence that the current board who are putting more than a fiver into this club each week are trying to stiff us then perhaps you should leave well alone. The supporters club should be dealing with this sort of stuff why have you usurped their responsibilities?
Put simply we as supporters collectively put 4-5 million into our club each year of our own money, and some of us want a say in what happens to it, and that it survives in a form we recognise, if you don't agree that's your prerogative Do I believe the battle for the Valley has already begun? Yes, not because the board are big meanies, but because they are not Charlton fans and are not interested as we are in where it is in 5-10-20 years time, their primary objective is making money. This is why we formed a Supporter's Trust. Currently and quite alarmingly the club appears to be very low on funds (see last two transfer windows) and is seeking investment. And as for the money they are putting in, I think they aim to get it back, don't you? But yes credit to them for achieving what they have. If we wanted to be dramatic, in an attempt to boost members why wait til now? With reference to employees you forget the departure of our Peter Varney and our CEO Steve Kavanagh, and Wendy Perfect - these weren't the reason for the Trust but this is somewhat more significant than booting out one gobby employee as you put it. And all were 'club' people I understand. Am I going to criticise them for that no, am I going to stand around and do nothing, and not try and persuade them the benefits of more fan involvement, no, am I going to not tell other fans what I feel are the implications of that view, yes, if they will listen. According to our research fans overwhelmingly think a Supporter's Trust is a good idea for CAFC, look at what we and other clubs can and have achieved with that kind of cooperation. I have spoken to every significant stakeholder who has love for this club over the past year, that is where I get my information from, including current and former executives and directors, committee of Branches, fans in the street you name it. I have stood in the cold and wet talking to fans week in week out. As a Trust we have steered away from unsubstantiated rumour altho obviously we listen, as have I myself. We try as much as possible to conduct ourselves in a professional manner, and scientific approach. We are open, democratic and governed by strict rules laid down by supporters direct. My article on Charlton life was done as an individual which I stated clearly at the beginning, I owe you nor anyone else any allegiance or airtime in that capacity, as Chair of CAS Trust I try and talk to all members, and fans generally including all message boards and make myself available, because that is the job I have agreed to do. I believe the article has been made Members only now, go and join if you want a read. In retrospect perhaps it was a mistake, but it had been the culmination of many many months. And so back to the Valley which to me is also a symbol of the heart and soul of our club. I have very good reasons to believe the Valley is perceived as a financial millstone by those who have a say in its future, and is in jeopardy as such in the medium term, but also if we were to get a foreign owner a lot sooner than that. At the very least I believe a strong Trust can investigate, ask questions, inform fans, and hopefully a lot more, and maybe we can get a say and argue the case for a sustainable Valley if there is one. We are not a replacement for CASC, but while the main branch and core operations of that group are in the state of disintegration and disrepute that they are presently we will gladly help out, in a complimentary way and nothing more. The Chairs of three of the bigger groups NWKA, Bromley, and Ashford have given us support. Finally we have sought positive engagement throughout, and would like to help the club fill the Valley among other things. In my ideal world we would help them in as many ways as possible to make the club a success. I'm sorry I cannot give you more specific information than that, but if you want to meet me I am happy to discuss at length. I also think events may overtake us which is why I want a strong Trust now rather than next year. I understand your point of view, but I would like to reassure you that the people in the Trust including myself are genuine and only have the best long term interests of CAFC at heart coupled with their love for the club.
Re the valley- has the question ever been put to the powers that were- who are held in high regard by the trust- whether there were discussions to uproot from the valley 10 years ago? A question out of curiosity as I'd be interested in the answer.
There wasn't any secret about it then, Varney admitted he was "looking at alternative sites". I'd be interested to know if there were plans to sell off The Valley more recently, would this have gone ahead if the take-over had fallen through?
there was a plan mooted once I recall, there was also planning permission which has recently expired on the valley site, my colleague reckons its about ambition, a yoyo club could manage at the Valley site, a club with full on long term Premier ambitions would need a new site, that could be expanded. I think they became embroiled in survival, and this was before the premiership money really jumped. No one has seriously outlined what the issue with Le Valle is, but perhaps the location, infrastructure, planning, parking? Personally I would need this spelled out very carefully, and other ideas brought to the table before I was convinced. It's not up to me though, but i would hope we could get consultation in such a circumstance.
I've always thought it's not that there's any problem with The Valley, just that selling it would raise a lot of readies, far more than it would cost to build an alternative in Kent. I'm not bothered about whether or not they are Charlton fans, Richard Murray is a fan and that did not mean he could run the club successfully once Curbs went. And what's wrong with them wanting to make a profit? It's a sign of how mad football is if owners are expected to be happy to make a loss year on year. Tango man put £40m into Palace and they still went skint.
no one said they shouldn't make a profit, but they certainly aren't doing it for fun or charity, should we be grateful and cow tow to that when we are also funding the enterprise? In my view no actually. You can't have it both ways, they are running it for a business. Fine, but how long can any business go on losing that amount? We are in it as fans, does that mean conflict? I hope we can work to mutual objectives and there is a lot of potential for that. Yes Murray was a Charlton fan and yes he made mistakes I expect he'd admit that, however he did with open and honest motives, and left the club in as good as position as possible. He also governed the most successful prolonged period in our history I believe.
The period when Curbs was manager you mean. So look at the decisions he made when Curbs left, and how they affected the club. Are you sure his motives were honest when he signed Dowie? You seem to be saying that we want to have owners who are fans, and are therefore prepared to pour their money in indefinitely, like Tango Man did at Palace, who are now doing better without him. Obviously you are right to say they can't go on forever running at a big loss, but they are still investing in the Academy, so that's where they must see the future, which is exactly how I see it as well.
no I'm not saying that, I'm saying it was open so we could make our own mind up, so honest in that sense. Yes the academy is a good idea, but cannot surely account for that enormous loss, but then we don't know because it's not published, anyway thanks for the comments hopefully I've at least been able to put our point of view and people will take that as they like All the best for now, and I hope you will invite me back very soon
I am afraid that raz has not really satisfied me that the trust actually can see the woods for the trees and even know what they are campaigning for. A sort of rebel without a clue. My post went prety much unanswered, a few buzz words in reply, a bit of into the breach, dear friends, sensationalism but nothing factual nor evidentially covinvincing. What is interesting is that the original thread on CL was pulled and is now put out for members only. If I was a cynic I would suggest that it took too many bites from the 'public' to be any worth and the bones were starting to show. This is not how I expect a open forum to be run, agree, agree, agree, or we will hide it from view if it gets a bit of a pasting. I'll keep my fiver thanks.
Thanks for coming on and posting your thoughts. As things stand I'm still not convinced by the plans and definitely by individuals involved/supporting it so I won't be on board. But again i appreciate the time you have taken to post and feel free to come back, as there will be members who could be interested in any developments.
Has the current proposed Supporters' Trust forgotten about the previous proposed Supporters' Trust? Summer of 2009. No information whatsoever coming from the club for about 2 months. Rumours everywhere of administration. Parky staring glumly into the distance, "unsure of his future". Can't remember if this was before or after Murray said if there were enough season ticket sales, he'd sack Parkinson. Nothing from Rick Everitt. Supporters' Trust formed, but fizzled out after winning the first few games of the season. Not that it necessarily needs to be the same for Charlton, but for my other club, "the time when we were run by the Supporters' Trust" is another way of saying "the worst period in the club's history"
"Put simply we as supporters collectively put 4-5 million into our club each year of our own money, and some of us want a say in what happens to it, and that it survives in a form we recognise" - Please tell me Razil, does this mean I can demand a say in what Sainsburys sells as I put a lot of money their way. No it doesn't. I'm afraid we are no more than customers, if you want more than that afraid you will have to buy a lucky lotto ticket & then invest the winnings & a whole lot more in the club. You can ask to be consulted, & like any good business Charlton will let you & the trust in if it feels it will benefit the club. I have yet to be convinced that is the case, give us something constructive for the future & properly finance it, then you will be taken seriously
I can recall three previous attempts by the 'usual suspects' to start a ST. There actually could be more thinking about it. It's as if they wait every season, the skies darken and suddenly "our chairman wears blue socks!, right that's it, supporters trust!" It's gets a bit Monty Python with them "are you the supporters trust 2013?" "Fu.k off! we are the supporters trust of 2011" "tch"
What has to worry the ST is the fact that so many of the Club's supporters are against it, you would have thought that if it were seen as constructive and trying to help the Club then fans would be behind it 100% Perhaps the ST has made an error in its PR Department (just like the Club itself has recently) but the mis-trust of so many supporters towards the ST will be a massive problem for them to overcome in the future. I think that a large number of supporters see the ST as being anti Board and proposing solutions that are patently not achieveable (ownership of the Valley for instance) so would rather they did not exist, at present anyway!
I'm not sure where you get your information but the trust is doing rather well for members actually given there is no burning barn in public view - ask Supporters Direct. The usual suspects would not include me sorry, and Rick Everett has no involvement, in fact we compete with him for readers, but hey I doubt any of you have read TNT right, or anything much from website? I think only one of our number is from a previous incarnation. Our surveys say an overwhelming number of fans think a Trust would be a good idea. We wouldn't have set this up otherwise. It may be that convincing them that full membership is necessary is going to take a lot of work, but our studies and efforts show if you get out and talk to people a certain number will join But of course don't let actual evidence affect your view. What evidence do you have for mistrust, a handful of you on a here? We have a network of nearly 1600 fans, not just from forums, but nearly a thousand on twitter, and facebook. And more elsewhere including the branch network. I think its the other way around,not that people don't trust us, but I think we have to earn the Trust and that is what we are trying to do, by listening to fans about what matters to them, rather than dicating a revolution from a backroom somewhere, we are trying to do that. Reality is we are achieving it steadily, with no help from the club channels but entirely off our own bat, including the BTTV event which the club simply werent interested in. The Sainsburys analogy doesn't apply as you can simply walk down the road and go to Tescos. Fancy going to to Millwall or Crystal Palace? thought not. You are entitled to your views but try I personally think rational argument based on facts and evidence not heresay or preconception are the best way to form opinions. Any of you are more than welcome to meet me at some point and I will explain more face to face the offer is there. But I exepect we will not convince everyone and that is fine. Finally we have no major policies yet other than representing fans views to the club, helping branches trying to establish a relationship with cafc, as we are in startup pre our first SGM. The full Board nominations only finished today, and we will hold more soon when the membership increases. We will develop more policies after the meeting in April, but we have waited to build up a base before we embark on serious policy. I really don't see the sensationalism point, we havent done that and indeed we could have when we started, but didn't. As I said we prefer to deal in facts where at all possible. All the best
I think what you need to galvanize Charlton Supporters to support the Supporters Trust is some form of crisis,ie moving away from the Valley to ground share with Millwall,Administration etc.At the moment we have had none of the above.Lots of Charlton Supporters feel that everything in the garden is rosy,that view may change in the next year or two without investment.I dont see why the Supporters Trust should be viewed as anti board as i think the aim of Barnie and the other members of the ST is to work with the board rather than against it.The model works very well at Swansea so why shouldnt it work for us?
